Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Apparently immigrant families are in less danger under a bridge in El Paso as opposed to a hotel in NYC. 
 

It’s very  possible there is some truth to that. Sad. 

 

Or on their thousands of miles journey from their 3rd world countries to the US. :rolleyes:

  • Agree 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Or on their thousands of miles journey from their 3rd world countries to the US. :rolleyes:

Being sent to one of America’s great metropolis’s where they can commit low-level offenses if they so choose without fear of prosecution or deportation now amounts to human trafficking and putting families in danger.


Why can’t they all just stay under a bridge in Texas?? 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
9 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Being sent to one of America’s great metropolis’s where they can commit low-level offenses if they so choose without fear of prosecution or deportation now amounts to human trafficking and putting families in danger.


Why can’t they all just stay under a bridge in Texas?? 

 

Obviously living under a bridge in El Paso is what they always dreamed of...

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

Apparently immigrant families are in less danger under a bridge in El Paso as opposed to a hotel in NYC. 
 

It’s very  possible there is some truth to that. Sad. 


likewise if you want to see a virtue signaling idiot liberal with a deer in Headlights look; ask how we’ve gone overnight from not having an illegal migrant problem to having a human trafficking of migrants problem ?
 

It’s really difficult to have the later without the former no? 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
22 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

A sanctuary city is simply a city that doesn't report suspected illegal immigrants to immigration enforcement.

 

That's really it. Some cities do more with social services and such, some don't; but the main thing is that they don't hold people for immigration enforcement.

So you won't tell on them but you will let them die in the street or be a criminal to survive? To pretend that makes you a nice person is insane.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:

So you won't tell on them but you will let them die in the street or be a criminal to survive? To pretend that makes you a nice person is insane.

 

Again the only reason they have a problem with it is because it exposes the disaster this incompetent Admin's border policy has been and the terrible consequences it imposes on places that have to deal with the massive number of illegals.  It was all ***** and giggles when it was border towns/cities in Texas being overrun because, hahah, it's Texas.  Start busting budgets in NYC, Chicago, MV and elsewhere and it's "human trafficking!" and a lot of lip service about how they're not for open borders, while they do nothing about it.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted

Talked to my friend who has lived in the city for 20+ years, has an office downtown.  He’s always loved the city (he grew up in the burbs), and suggested that absent family, he’d move from Chicago and never look back.  Sirens are a regularity. Car jacking, mugging, violent crime off the charts.  
 

What a sad thing to hear.  

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
6 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

So you won't tell on them but you will let them die in the street or be a criminal to survive? To pretend that makes you a nice person is insane.

 

WTF are you talking about?

  • Eyeroll 2
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

You tried to redefine the word sanctuary and then pretend allowing people to die is actually kind, what confuses you?


I defined sanctuary city as it is actually defined and expressed my opposition for allowing people to die. 
 

Being on this board makes me wonder if being unable to read leads to conservatism or vice versa. But in any case, it is reassuring to see that pride of ignorance appears to be a staple of people who disagree with me. 

Edited by ChiGoose
  • Eyeroll 1
Posted
9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I defined sanctuary city as it is actually defined and expressed my opposition for allowing people to die. 
 

Being on this board makes me wonder if being unable to read leads to conservatism or vice versa. But in any case, it is reassuring to see that pride of ignorance appears to be a staple of people who disagree with me. 

 

LOL!  Yet you make up a definition, or more precisely parrot the definition from Dem talking points, of "human trafficking."

 

And don't make me laugh with the 2nd paragraph.  You're as ignorant as they come.  Which is how they want you.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
10 hours ago, ChiGoose said:


I defined sanctuary city as it is actually defined and expressed my opposition for allowing people to die. 
 

Being on this board makes me wonder if being unable to read leads to conservatism or vice versa. But in any case, it is reassuring to see that pride of ignorance appears to be a staple of people who disagree with me. 

You defined a word that has a passing relation to the actual definition of a sanctuary, and is not what is actually happening in these cities. Pretending that I don't understand is funny, especially when Buffalo stated a few years back they are not a sanctuary city but will not work the federal government. 

 

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/government-and-politics/election-2021-issues-should-buffalo-be-a-sanctuary-city-walton-brown-disagree/article_7b0bd85e-22c8-11ec-b108-b3eb22fedada.html

 

Main quote I found: But Brown says there's no need for Buffalo to become a sanctuary city, given that city police already have a policy of not working with federal agencies 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

You defined a word that has a passing relation to the actual definition of a sanctuary, and is not what is actually happening in these cities. Pretending that I don't understand is funny, especially when Buffalo stated a few years back they are not a sanctuary city but will not work the federal government. 

 

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/government-and-politics/election-2021-issues-should-buffalo-be-a-sanctuary-city-walton-brown-disagree/article_7b0bd85e-22c8-11ec-b108-b3eb22fedada.html

 

Main quote I found: But Brown says there's no need for Buffalo to become a sanctuary city, given that city police already have a policy of not working with federal agencies 


I just used the actual meaning of the words. Sorry if that’s a problem for you for some reason. 


Dictionary.com

 

noun

a city in which the local government and police protect undocumented immigrants and refugees from deportation by federal authorities: sanctuary cities where law enforcement cannot question crime suspects about their immigration status.
 

Merriam-Webster

 

“relating to or being a locality that provides limited cooperation to federal officials in the enforcement of immigration laws or policies”

Posted
12 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I just used the actual meaning of the words. Sorry if that’s a problem for you for some reason. 


Dictionary.com

 

noun

a city in which the local government and police protect undocumented immigrants and refugees from deportation by federal authorities: sanctuary cities where law enforcement cannot question crime suspects about their immigration status.
 

Merriam-Webster

 

“relating to or being a locality that provides limited cooperation to federal officials in the enforcement of immigration laws or policies”

 

Yeah, sending them to places that won't deport them is terrible.  Much less American cities, which are infinitely better than the places from which they are seeking "asylum." :rolleyes:

 

Meanwhile, here is the definition of "human trafficking:"

 

image.thumb.png.3baf87e4d4644b8240dd64c100d17d7c.png

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, sending them to places that won't deport them is terrible.  Much less American cities, which are infinitely better than the places from which they are seeking "asylum." :rolleyes:

 

Meanwhile, here is the definition of "human trafficking:"

 

image.thumb.png.3baf87e4d4644b8240dd64c100d17d7c.png


Your continued insistence on completely missing the point is remarkable. 
 

Also, seems like fraudulently inducing people to cross state lines for your personal political benefit might fit that definition there, buddy. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted

It deserves repeating....

 

Say what you want about Billsfuk.c, Tibs et al.....

 

At least they don't pretend to be anything other than what they are.

 

The King, JFR and others?

 

ummmm...not so much.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Your continued insistence on completely missing the point is remarkable. 
 

Also, seems like fraudulently inducing people to cross state lines for your personal political benefit might fit that definition there, buddy. 

 

No, the real point is that the so-called "stunt" of sending illegals to sanctuary cities has shown the US how terrible, if not criminal, Joke's open border policy is.  If big cities, much less who won't deport illegals, can't handle the massive influx...

 

And there's no evidence of fraud.  Otherwise a lawsuit would have been filed well before now.  And even still, it's not trafficking.  And they're still far better off than in their countries from which they were fearing death every second of the day.  Sorry.

Edited by Doc
  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Doc said:

 

No, the real point is that the so-called "stunt" of sending illegals to sanctuary cities has shown the US how terrible, if not criminal, Joke's open border policy is.  If big cities, much less who won't deport illegals, can't handle the massive influx...

 

And there's no evidence of fraud.  Otherwise a lawsuit would have been filed well before now.  And even still, it's not trafficking.  And they're still far better off than in their countries from which they were fearing death every second of the day.  Sorry.


Love that you believe the open borders nonsense. It’s the dumbest lie for the dumbest people and you have bitten hook line and sinker. 
 

Add in that most of the influx of people are asylum seekers, which makes them legal, not illegal, and it just adds to your ignorance. 
 

And so you take all of this idiocy that you believe and use it to justify treating vulnerable people like ***** because it makes you feel good. 
 

That’s a lot of justification to avoid recognizing that you’re the bad guy. 

Edited by ChiGoose
  • Eyeroll 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
On 10/14/2023 at 12:35 AM, ChiGoose said:


Shipping vulnerable people across the country as part of a game to score political points is bad.
 

That shouldn’t be a controversial opinion. 

 

So dumb.  

 

Yeah, they should ALL just sit in the same neighborhoods in our Southern border states forever...

 

The Federal Gov't, which theoretically manages the border, has no responsibility for managing the outcomes of their failures, I guess.

 

(Democrat policies)

  • Thank you (+1) 2
×
×
  • Create New...